*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AST).<\/p>\n
The latest issue of the The Queensland Lawyer (Volume 38 Part 3) contains\u00c2\u00a0the following material:<\/p>\n
EDITORIAL<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c General Editor: Andrew M West<\/em><\/p>\n COMMERCIAL LAW<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Dr Clive Turner<\/em><\/p>\n CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY LAW<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Dr Bill Dixon<\/em><\/p>\n CRIMINAL LAW<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Andrew M West<\/em><\/p>\n INDUSTRIAL LAW<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Dr Kristy Richardson<\/em><\/p>\n Management Rights Agreements for Body Corporates in Queensland: Must They Expire, or May They Be \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Topped Up\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Indefinitely?<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Neil Samuel Hope, Dane Bryce Weber and Maija-Ilona Wilhelmiina Pekkanen<\/p>\n There is a natural desire on the part of the holders of caretaking agreements to keep those agreements alive for as long as possible to protect the value of the asset embodied in such agreements. Term limits with respect to such rights are determined by statute, however, without any definitive authority on the interpretation of the statutory provisions that apply, caretakers and body corporates alike appear to rely purely on \u00e2\u20ac\u0153standard industry practice\u00e2\u20ac\u009d to allow unlimited extensions to such agreements. While \u00e2\u20ac\u0153standard industry practice\u00e2\u20ac\u009d is not an authoritative source of law, there unfortunately exists no definitive authority as to the interpretation of those term limits to settle the tension. May caretaking agreements be extended indefinitely, or do they have a set expiration date, notwithstanding \u00e2\u20ac\u0153standard industry practice\u00e2\u20ac\u009d or contracts that might suggest otherwise?<\/p>\n Amendments to the Small Business Capital Gains Concessions<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Francesco Maconi<\/p>\n The small business capital gains concessions contained in Div 152 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 <\/em>(Cth), which are (1) the 15-year exemption, (2) the 50% active asset reduction, (3) the retirement exemption and (4) rollover relief, were designed to provide CGT relief for taxpayers who chose to dispose of an active asset in a small business. If a taxpayer wants to utilise the small business concessions, the taxpayer must satisfy certain conditions (the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153access conditions\u00e2\u20ac\u009d). The access conditions are complex and difficult to apply in practice. Under the most recent 2018 amendments introduced by the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Integrity and Other Measures) Act 2018 <\/em>(Cth), the federal government has amended the third access condition, which applies when a taxpayer disposes of an interest in a company or trust. This article argues that the amendments are a missed opportunity to simplify access to the small business concessions, which has become more complex than ever before.<\/p>\n BOOK REVIEWS<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Judge Brian Devereaux SC<\/em><\/p>\n For the PDF\u00c2\u00a0version of the table of contents, click here: Qld Lawyer Vol 38 No 3 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Articles<\/h3>\n
\n